In this News Letter 2nd Edition of September 2025, you’ll find:
1.Ratio of Latest Judgements
2.GST News & Update
3. GST Notification
4.GST Compliances Due Dates
RATIO OF LATEST JUDGEMENTS ON GST
Sharma Trading Company v Union of India & Ors, W.P.(C) 13194/2018 (Delhi High Court)
The petitioner who is a distributor of M/s Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) filed the writ petition, primarily challenging Section 171 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, which pertains to anti-profiteering measures. The challenge arose from a finding by the Directorate General of Anti-Profiteering (DGAP) related to the non-passing of GST rate reduction benefits to the consumer.
The Petitioner contended that its pricing was justified because, after the GST rate change, the quantity of the subject product was increased by 100 ml. Therefore, the Petitioner argued that if the quantity of the product increases, the price can also be legitimately increased, nullifying the anti-profiteering allegation. The Hon’ble High Court considered the Petitioner’s argument regarding the concurrent increase in the product’s quantity. However, the Hon’ble High Court was of the opinion that this defense would not be a valid stand to justify the retention of the benefit of GST rate reduction as this would be a deception on Consumer.
The Hon’ble High Court relied on its categorical observation in the precedent case of Reckitt Benckiser v Union of India, W.P.(C)7743/2019, which established that an increase in volume or weight or the supply of additional free material by any schemes would not be sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement of passing on the benefit availed (i.e., the reduction in the tax rate) to the consumers. The ruling essentially upholds the principle that the anti-profiteering benefit must be passed on to the consumer regardless of any changes in the quantity of the goods supplied. Consequently, the demand was upheld on the Petitioner but the Penalty was dropped.
Note: This judgement is important in the present time as the Government strongly pressing and monitoring for passing-on the actual benefit to the consumer where-ever the GST rate is reduced effective from 22nd Sept, 2025.
V.R. Impex v. Commissioner of Delhi (2025) 33 Centax 384, (Delhi High Court)
The Petitioner challenged the retrospective cancellation of the GST Registration, which was made effective from August 30, 2019, by an order dated March 16, 2023. The Show Cause Notice (SCN) for cancellation issued on April 4, 2022, was based on the ground that the principal place of business was not found during a field visit. However, the petitioner argued that the SCN did not notify them that the cancellation would be retrospective. The Court cited multiple precedents, including cases of Subhana Fashion and Ridhi Sidhi Enterprises, which held that retrospective cancellation is impermissible if the SCN does not contemplate it and no specific reasons are assigned for such action. The Court emphasized that the power to cancel GST registration retrospectively is not “robotic” or “routinely applied” and must be supported by a reasoned order demonstrating the application of mind, especially given the “deleterious consequences” like the denial of Input Tax Credit (ITC) to the taxpayer’s customers.
The Hon’ble High Court observed an “abject failure” on the part of the authority to assign even rudimentary reasons for the retroactive cancellation and noted that the SCN did not propose it.
Consequently, the Court found the retrospective cancellation order unsustainable. The final directive of the Court was that the order cancelling the GST registration of the Petitioner would be modified to take effect only from the date of the SCN, which was April 4, 2022, thereby setting aside the retrospective application.
Ved Prakash Agarwal v. State of Telangana (2025) 34 Centax 344 (Telangana)
The present case involves a dispute between a deceased proprietor’s grandson and sons over the GST registration of a spices business. The grandson, claimed the business based on a will allegedly executed by the deceased. The sons, on the other hand, formed a partnership and also obtained GST registration for the same business. The civil court, in an interim application, observed that the will presented by the grandson appeared to be forged. Subsequently, the sons filed a petition to cancel the grandson’s GST registration, but the GST authorities refused. Both parties then filed writ petitions with the High Court: the sons sought the cancellation of the grandson’s GST registration, and the grandson sought the cancellation of the sons’ registration.
The Hon’ble High Court ruled that civil disputes, such as conflicting claims over the genuineness of a will or succession, should be adjudicated by a Civil Court, not GST authorities. The court noted that the validity of the will and the issue of lawful succession were still pending in a civil partition suit. Therefore, the court decided that the GST registrations of both the grandson and the sons could be verified and decided upon only after the civil court determines the rights of the parties in the pending suit. The Hon’ble High Court revoked the interim suspension of both GST registrations that it had previously ordered and disposed of the writ petitions.
Sunil Thampy Nair V. State of Maharashtra, (2025) 34 Centax 166 (Bom.)
In present facts of the case, the petitioner challenged a demand order dated December 22, 2023, which was issued against the petitioner’s wife for Rs. 80,62,516. The challenge was based on the fact that the petitioner’s wife had expired on December 29, 2018, before the order was passed.
The Hon’ble High Court, observed that the impugned order was a nullity because it was made against a deceased person and was, therefore, required to be set aside. The consequential Form GST DRC-16 order dated July 30, 2024, was also set aside. The petitioner, was directed to file an affidavit disclosing the legal representatives and the assets of his deceased wife, which he did. The affidavit also disclosed the immovable property owned solely by the deceased wife.
Despite setting aside the order, the Hon’ble High Court acknowledged the Revenue’s entitlement to proceed against the legal representatives under Section 93 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The respondents’ counsel stated that a necessary show cause notice would be issued to the legal representatives within four weeks and would be disposed of within six months from the date of service, following the law and principles of natural justice. In return, the petitioner agreed that the legal representatives would not sell, transfer, or otherwise deal with the deceased’s immovable properties until the show cause notice was disposed of within the indicated timeline. Based on these terms, the Court set aside the demand order but granted the department liberty to proceed against the legal representatives
Radhey Traders V. Assistant Commissioner, CGST Delhi East Commissionerate, (2025) 33 Centax 405 (Del.)
The Petitioner challenged two Order-in-Originals: one confirming a demand for wrongly availed ineligible Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Rs 1.14 crore, and another confirming a tax liability of Rs 8.19 crore due to a difference in tax liability between GSTR-1 and GST-3B. The petitioner claimed that his GST registration, obtained in November 2018, was misused for sales of over Rs 50 crores for the Financial Year 2019-2020 without his knowledge, which he only discovered upon receiving a notice from the Income Tax Department in March 2024. The petitioner alleged that he had given an OTP from his mobile number to a person named Tara Chand Sagar for the purpose of getting his GST registration cancelled or deactivated. Subsequently, an FIR was registered with the Delhi Police’s Special Cell.
The Hon’ble Court, after considering the petitioner’s averments and a status report from the Delhi Police, observed that the petitioner had voluntarily given the OTP to a third party, and on the basis of this OTP, seven firms were created, leading to a total fraudulent ITC availment of more than Rs 50 crores. The Hon’ble High Court held that the petitioner “cannot claim to be completely innocent” and that a Writ Court “cannot go into a factual inquiry” as to who was responsible for the fraudulent ITC. The Court’s primary
observation was that the giving of the OTP and subsequent misuse “would require investigation by the police authorities” and could not be conducted by the High Court in a writ petition. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petitions, permitting the petitioner to avail of his legal remedies in accordance with law.
N Star Foods and Beverages V. Commercial Tax Officer, Pongalur Assessment Circle, Tiruppur (2025) 33 Centax 131 (Mad.)
In present facts of the case, the challenge was made to an assessment order dated December 17, 2024, passed by the Commercial Tax Officer. The petitioner claimed they were unaware of the show cause notice (SCN) and subsequent communications because they were uploaded only under the “View Additional Notice and Orders” column in the GST common portal. Consequently, they failed to file a reply, and the assessment order was passed without affording them an opportunity for a personal hearing. The respondent (Officer) admitted to uploading the notices on the portal and also fairly admitted that no opportunity for a personal hearing was provided before passing the impugned order. The petitioner agreed to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount and requested an opportunity to present their case.
The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras observed that while uploading a notice on the portal is a valid mode of service, the Officer, upon receiving no response to repeated reminders, should have explored other valid modes of service prescribed in Section 169 of the GST Act, preferably by way of RPAD (Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due), to ensure effective service. The Court found a lack of opportunities effectively provided to the petitioner. The Court held that merely passing an ex parte order by fulfilling “empty formalities” does not serve any useful purpose and leads to multiplicity of litigation. Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration.
This remand was conditional upon the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax amount within four weeks. Upon payment, the petitioner must file their reply within three weeks, and the respondent must then issue a 14-day clear notice for a personal hearing before passing a fresh order on merits. Furthermore, the Court ordered that the attachment made on the petitioner’s bank account be lifted immediately upon production of the order copy and proof of payment.
Laxmi Chauhan Versus Commissioner of Customs, Airport and General (2025) 34 Centax 303 (Del.)
The Petitioner challenged the detention and subsequent confiscation/release upon fine, which were seized by the Customs Department on May 2, 2023, while the Petitioner was traveling from Dubai to India. The jewellery was received as a gift from her mother-in-law and was being personally worn and carried by her. The detention order led to an Order-in-Original dated September 25, 2023, which ordered the absolute confiscation of the jewellery and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,15,000/-. On appeal, the Order-in-Appeal dated January 16, 2024, allowed the release of the jewellery for re-export upon payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 1,15,000/- and a penalty of Rs. 1,15,000/-. The Petitioner’s main contentions were that the jewellery was her personal effect under the Baggage Rules, 2016, and that no Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued and no personal hearing was granted before the Order-in-Original was passed. The Department of Revenue subsequently filed a revision application against the Order-in-Appeal.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that the jewellery carried by the Petitioner squarely falls within the ambit of ‘personal effects’ under the Baggage Rules, 2016, and is thus exempt from detention by the Customs Department. The Court also highlighted that no Show Cause Notice was issued to the Petitioner, and the mandatory one-year period for issuing the SCN had elapsed. Furthermore, the Court reiterated the established principle that a waiver of the SCN cannot be done on the basis of a pre-filled form and using such a form to avoid issuing an SCN or affording a personal hearing is not permissible. Given these observations, the Court found the detention itself to be doubtful. However, considering that the Petitioner had already pursued the appeal, the Court deemed it appropriate to give effect to the Order-in-Appeal. The Court disposed of the petition by directing the Petitioner to appear before the Customs Department, and upon payment of the redemption fine and penalty as specified in the Order-in-Appeal, the goods shall be released for re-export. Additionally, the Court waived the warehousing charges.
Dawn Express Courier Del Pvt Ltd. Vs Union of India, (2025) 34 Centax 353 (Del.)
In present facts of the case, the Petitioner challenged a Show Cause Notice, which sought to impose GST demands and penalties totalling over more than Rs 32 crores. The SCN followed an investigation by the DGGI (Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence) initiated in January 2024, which found discrepancies related to the Petitioner’s international in-bound courier consignments, including tax evasion and non-discharge of GST liability on import of services. The Petitioner challenged the SCN on two main grounds: firstly, that there was a lack of pre-notice consultation under Rule 142 of the CGST Rules, and secondly, that giving only a one-day notice for hearing was a complete violation of the principles of natural justice. The Department argued that the pre-notice consultation was discretionary (Rule 142(1A)) and that the Petitioner had repeatedly sought adjournments but had not submitted a detailed reply.
The Hon’ble High Court, while acknowledging that the Petitioner was well aware of the tax evasion allegations since the investigation began in January 2024, held that the challenge to the SCN based on the lack of pre-notice consultation under Rule 142 or non-availment of Section 74(5) was not tenable. However, the Court strongly observed that one day’s
notice for a hearing is completely violative of the principles of natural justice. The Court emphasized that an SCN requires the taxpayer to prepare a detailed reply in consultation with lawyers/consultants and collect various documents, which necessitates sufficient time. Accordingly, the Hon’ble High Court directed that the Petitioner ought to be afforded a proper 30 days’ time to file a reply to the SCN and that a notice for personal hearing must be granted thereafter. The petition was disposed of with a direction to file the reply by September 30, 2025, after which the Adjudicating Authority must pass a detailed reasoned order after hearing the Petitioner.
IDP Education India Pvt Ltd. Versus Union of India, (2025) 34 Centax 374 (Raj.)
In present facts of the case, the case was filed by IDP Education India Pvt Ltd., a subsidiary of IDP Education Ltd (IDP Australia), challenging the denial of its refund claim for Integrated Goods and Services Tax paid on the supply of services for the periods 2019-20 and 2020-21. The Petitioner entered into a service agreement with its Australian parent company to provide student placement, guidance, counselling, and enrolment services to students aspiring to join foreign universities that had agreements with IDP Australia. The Petitioner classified these services supplied to IDP Australia as the export of services (a zero-rated supply) and thus claimed an IGST refund. However, the Original and Appellate Authorities denied the refund, holding that the Petitioner’s services qualified as “intermediary” services, which meant the place of supply was in India, thereby disentitling them from the export status. The core dispute hinged on whether the Petitioner was an intermediary arranging a supply between a foreign university and a student, or if it was supplying services on its own account to IDP Australia.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that for a service provider to be classified as an “intermediary” under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act, the existence of a tri-partite contractual arrangement is essential, which was absent in this case. The Court found that the Petitioner’s services were rendered only to the Australian company under a bipartite arrangement on a principal-to-principal basis, and the Petitioner had no contractual agreement with the foreign universities or the students and no say in the final admission process. Consequently, the Court held that the services certainly qualified as an ‘export’. The Court also relied on the fact that the CESTAT had previously ruled in the Petitioner’s favour on the same issue under the pre-GST regime, a position confirmed by the CBIC Circular of September 20, 2021 which stated that the scope of intermediary services remained broadly the same. The petition was therefore allowed, the refund was permitted, and the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to process the refund claim along with applicable interest within four weeks.
GSTAT NEWS & UPDATES
NOTIFICATION S.O. 4220(E) [F. NO. A-50/7/2025-GSTAT-DoR] DATED 17-9-2025
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017), the Government, on the recommendations of the Council, hereby notifies the 30th day of June, 2026, as the date up-to which Appeal may be filed before the Appellate Tribunal under this Act in respect of all cases where the order sought to be appealed against is communicated to the person preferring the Appeal before the 1st day of April, 2026 and all Appeals in respect of order communicated on or after 1st April, 2026 may be filed before the Appellate Tribunal within three months from the date on which such order is communicated to the person preferring the Appeal.
NOTIFICATION S.O. 4219(E) [F. NO. A-50/7/2025-GSTAT-DoR] DATED 17-9-2025
In exercise of the powers conferred by the third proviso to sub-section (5) of section 109 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017) the Government, on the recommendations of the Council, hereby notifies the following cases or class of cases, in respect of which an Appeal shall be heard only by the Principal Bench, namely:-
Any case or class of cases, —
- pending before two or more State Benches where the President is satisfied that an identical question of law is involved;
- where one or more issues involved therein covered under section 14 or section 14A of the IGST Act i.e. cases related to online information and database access or retrieval services & actionable claims supplied by a person located outside taxable territory.
- where one or more issues involved therein is covered under section 20 of the CGST Act i.e. cases related to Input Services Distributor.
Since, GST rates on specified services has also been changed with effect from 22/09/2025 so we have compiled the rate changes and the specific conditions relevant to the entries in a separate compendium which is annexed here with for information and detailed analysis.
DUE DATES – GST COMPLIANCES IN OCTOBER 2025 | |||
Monthly | Quarterly | Other Due Dates | |
GSTR-3B (Sep, 2025) Oct 20th, 2025
| GSTR-3B(Jul-Sep, 2025) Oct 22nd, 24th, 2025
| GSTR-5 (Sep, 2025) Oct 13th, 2025
| GSTR-5A (Sep, 2025) Oct 20th, 2025
|
GSTR-1 (Sep, 2025) Oct 11th, 2025
| GSTR-1 (Jul-Sep, 2025) Oct 13th, 2025
| GSTR-6 (Sep, 2025) Oct 13th, 2025
| GSTR-7 (Sep, 2025) Oct 10th, 2025
|
IFF (Optional) (Sep,2025) NA
| CMP-08 (Jul-Sep, 2025) Oct 18th, 2025
| GSTR-8 (Sep, 2025) Oct 10th, 2025
| RFD-10 2 years from the last day of the quarter in which supply was received
|
Disclaimer: Pursuant to the Bar Council of India rules, we are not permitted to solicit work and advertise. You, the reader acknowledges that there has been no advertisement, personal communication, solicitation, invitation or inducement of any sort whatsoever from us or any of our members to solicit any work through this newsletter. The information provided in this newsletter is solely available at your request and is for informational purposes only, it should not be interpreted as soliciting or advisement. We are not liable for any consequence of any action taken by the reader relying on material/ information provided in the newsletter. In cases where the reader has any legal issues, he/she must in all cases seek independent legal advice. Any information obtained or materials used from this newsletter is completely at the reader’s volition and any transmission, receptor use of the contents of this newsletter would not create any lawyer-client relationship.